Psychology and Criminal Justice: International Review of Theory and Practice. A Publication of the European Association of Psychology and Law 9783110804799, 9783110163292

Citation preview

Psychology and Criminal Justice

Publications of the European Association of Psychology and Law Series editors: David P. Farrington and Friedrich Lösel

Psychology and Criminal Justice International Review of Theory and Practice

Edited by

Jänos Boros Ivan Münnich Märton Szegedi

W G DE

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1998

Prof. Jänos Boros, Head of Department of Research and International Relations, Ministry of Justice, Budapest, Hungary Prof. Ivan Münrtich, Head of Department of Psychology, National Institution of Criminology, Budapest, Hungary Prof. Märton Szegedi, Psychiatric Clinic, Semmelweis Medical University, Budapest, Hungary With 82 tables and 26 figures

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Psychology and criminal justice : international review of theory and practice / edited by Janos Boros, Ivan Münnich, Marton Szegedi p. cm. — (Publications of the European Association of Psychology and Law) Papers presented at the 5th Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, held in Budapest in 1995. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-016329-2 (alk. paper) 1. Criminal justice. Administration of—Psychological aspects-Congresses. 2. Criminal psychology-Congresses. I. Boros, Jänos. II. Münnich, Ivan. III. Szegedi, Märton. IV. European Association of Psychology and Law. Conference (5th : 1995 : Budapest, Hungary) V. Series. HV7243.P78 1998 364'.01'9-dc21 98-36246 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Psychology and criminal justice : international review of theory and practice / ed. by Jänos Boros ... - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1998 ISBN 3-11-016329-2

© Copyright 1998 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Technical Editor and Desktop Publishing: Vince Huszär, Budapest. - Printing and Binding: WB-Druck GmbH, Rieden am Forggensee. - Cover Design: Johannes Rother, Berlin. - Printed in Germany.

Preface

Between 30 August and 2 September 1995 the European Association of Psychology and Law organised its fifth Conference in Budapest with the participation of more than two hundred delegates from 28 countries. We were delighted that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe were impressively represented: 79 delegates from 12 of these countries were active participants in the programmes, and 28 of them presented lectures in their specific sections. The 50 articles included in this volume are made up of the 5 keynote addresses delivered at the Conference, and a selection from the 129 papers and 8 posters discussed in the 25 workshops. The members of the Organising Committee (Julia Benedek, Jänos Boros/Chair, Ferenc Deäk, Läszlo Huszär, Ivan Münnich, Eszter Szalma, Märton Szegedi, Maria Vörös) owe a debt of gratitude to all the people and organisations who gave their support to the Conference and to the preparation of this book. We wish to thank the Executive Committee of the EAPL for granting Hungary the privilege of hosting the Conference and for their extensive help in its preparation and organisation. Personal thanks go especially to President Friedrich Lösel for presenting the opening and closing addresses. Sincere thanks also and our appreciation to Professor Lösel and the Volkswagen Foundation for making it possible to organise a small but intimate meeting after the Conference where psychologists from Central and Eastern Europe met and were able to make Contributions who had not had the opportunity to do so at the Conference itself. We received significant assistance from the Hungarian Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice and from the Psychiatric Clinic of the Semmelweis Medical University. Director-General Ferenc Tari of the Hungarian Prison Administration gave indispensable support by making provisions for the accommodation, catering and transportation of the participants, by arranging the welcome reception, by providing facilities for the subsequent seminary, board and lodging for its participants from Germany and Eastern Europe, and by making it possible for the Department of Research and International Relations to take the lion's share of the preparation and organisation. His support to the preparation of this volume was also essential.

VI

Preface

We would like to thank Professor Läszlo Tringer, who opened the Conference and provided both the premises and the staff necessary for the success of the workshops. We are also grateful to Judit Csiha, the then State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice for her welcome address and for the farewell reception. We wish to thank the Patron of the Conference Pal Vastagh, Minister of Justice, the Advisory Board (Istvän Czigler, Kaiman Györgyi, Sändor Pinter, Läszlo Puszta^, Pal Solt, Peter Sotonyi, Andräs Szabo, Läszlo Tringer, Ferenc Tari), the Programme Committee (Märton Szegedi/Chair, Ivän Münnich, Jänos Boros, Friedrich Lösel, Graham Davies, Vincente Garrido, Dick J. Hessing, Peter van Koppen, Sally Lloyd-Bostock, Santiago Illescas Redondo, Giovanni-Battista Traverso), our invited speakers (Endre Bocz, Graham Davies, Jess Maghan, Märton Szegedi, Richard Tremblay), and all those who have contributed to this volume. Thanks to Judith Finn for proofreading and to Eva Päsztor for the organisation and liaising with the Publishers. It has been great pleasure for us to co-operate with Bianka Ralle and her colleagues during the editing process. Special appreciation to Vince Huszär, who joined the Editing Committee in the tedious and demanding concluding phase; we are most grateful for his contribution to the translations and for his conscientious and accurate work in bringing the book in line with the high standards of Walter de Gruyter & Co. The Editors

Contents

Preface

V

Introduction Jänos Boros, Ivan Münnich and Märton Szegedi

XIII

Contributors

XIX

Part 1: Children as Witnesses Videotechnology and the Child Witness Graham Davies

3

Explaining Conversation Rules as a Method to Reduce Suggestibility of the Child Witness Alder t Vrij, Marianne R. Mulder and Julie Cherry man Interviewing Children: The Importance of Omission Errors Graeme Hutcheson, James S. Baxter, Karen S. Telfer and David Warden The Defence Mechanisms and the Deformations of the Testimony Given by Sexually Abused Juveniles Teresa Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska

10

...

20

33

Part 2: Cognitive Interview and Police Reaction Further Perspectives in Cognitive Interviewing: New Directions Elizabeth Noon and Julian Boon

47

The Effects of the Cognitive Interview on Recall, Recognition and the Confidence/Accuracy Relationship Patrick Gwyer, Brian R. Clifford and Barbara Dritschel

53

VIII

Contents

Cognitive Interview: When Any Context Reinstatement Instruction is Successful Laura Campos and Marisa Alonso-Quecuty

61

Cognitive Interview: Confronting True and False Statements Estefania Hernandez-Fernaud and Marisa Alonso-Quecuty

67

Perceptions of the Credibility and Evidential Value of Victim and Suspect Statements in Interviews Anna Costanza Baldry and Frans Willem Winkel

74

Police Officers' Inadequate Impression Formation in Confrontations with Offenders as a Result of Physical Effort Aldert Vrij

82

Police Folklore and Attributions of Guilt: Can Psychology Challenge Long Held Assumptions? Peter B. Ainsworth

94

Part 3: Judicial Decision-Making State of Ohio v. X: Science and Strategy in the Criminal Court Sandra B. McPherson and Jay Milano

103

Impact on Verdict of Gender Homogeneous Juries in a Case of Rape Ramon Arce, Francisco Farina, Mercedes Novo and Santiago Real

113

Judicial Decision Making: Information Processing and Judgements Given by Blind Subjects Emilia I. De la Fuente, Juan Garcia and Jose A. Belmonte

120

Polygraphs in Criminal Justice Systems: The Effect of Different Legal Cultures on the Use of Scientific Evidence Petra van Kampen

130

The Jury Decision Rule: An Empirical Study of Four Methods Ramon Arce, Francisco Farina, Carlos Vila and Mercedes Novo

152

Juror's Decision in Capital Cases Vladimir Konecni

160

Parents Fighting for Custody of Children Alicja Czerederecka

188

Contents

IX

Part 4: Characteristics and Therapy of Offenders Boys' Behavioral Patterns in Kindergarten Predict Male Delinquency, Withdrawal, and School Adjustment Richard E. Tremblay and Jaana Haapasalo

197

Assessing Loss of Self-Control in Violent Offences Committed by Juveniles James McGuire

212

Social Competence and Sociomoral Reasoning in Young Offenders Emma J. Palmer

222

Feminist Group Therapy for Women Who Self-Harm Helen Liebling and Hazel Chipchase

229

Heterogeneity of Murders as the Fundamental Problem in the Psychological Profiling of a Perpetrator JozefK. Gierowski, Teresa Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska and Maciej Szaszkiewicz

237

Necrophilia: Love at Last Sight Philip D.Jaffi

242

Are Causal Theories of Paedophilia Possible? A Reconsideration of Sexual Abuse Cycles Dennis Howitt

248

Expert Psychological Opinion for the Court in Cases of Homicide under Emotional Strain in Poland Jan M. Stanik

254

The Problem of Depression's Diagnostic in Forensic and Civil Law in Women Evgenia V. Korolova

262

Part 5: Prison and Offender Research Effects of Prison Factors on Recidivism Jänos Boros

269

Prison Between Values and Efficiency Dragan Petrovec

278

X

Contents

Symbolic Patterns in Prisoners' Thinking: Imported Values and Indigenous Roles? Läszlo Huszar

287

Allowing Male Convicted Prisoners to Wear Their Own Clothes: The Psychological Effects Peter Marshall

293

A Harm Reduction Approach to the Depenalization of Drug Crime via Community Based Outpatient Treatment Brian McKenna and Michael Smith

301

Interplay of Religion, Medicine and Prison: A Preliminary Historical Study Roberts Girgensons

310

International Benchmarking Cynthia McDougall and John Powls

315

Training of Prison Officers for Leading Problem-Oriented Groups of Inmates Bernhard Wydra

319

Riots in the Romanian Penitentiaries after the Revolution of December 1989 Georghe Florian

322

Correctional Treatment in Portugal Rui Abrunhosa Gongalves

327

Part 6: Crime and the Public Terrorist Mentality Jess Maghan

335

Fear of Crime and Victimization Helmut Kury

346

The Social and Personal Influence of Positive Beliefs on Coping with Direct and Indirect Victimization Adriaan Denkers and Frans Willem Winkel

354

Psychological Aspects of the Process of Victimization Juan Horacio Del Popolo and Stella M. Spezia

366

Contents

XI

Victim-Offender Mediation in the Italian Juvenile Justice System: A First Attempt of Definition Anna Costanza Baldry, Gaetano De Leo and Gilda Scardaccione

377

The Impact of Professional Roles on Subjective Explanations of Juvenile Delinquency Mechthild Averbeck and Friedrich Lösel

385

Turning Heroes into Villains: The Role of Unconscious Transference in Media Crime Reporting Peter B. Ainsworth

399

Part 7: History and Perspectives of Law and Psychology Comparing Legal Cultures: Difficulties in the Cross-Cultural Applicability of Psychological Research Results Johannes F. Nijboer

407

Recent Changes of the Hungarian Legal System and Their Psychological Impact Endre Bocz

411

The Effects of the Guarantee System of Human Rights and Legality on the Delinquents György Voko

422

Legal Psychology in Europe: Results of a Survey Helmut Kury

428

Difficulties Experienced in Conducting Research in Forensic Psychology Janet Clare Wilson and Elizabeth Noon

436

The Development of Hungarian Forensic Psychology Märton Szegedi

441

Subject Index

457

Introduction Jänos Boros, Ινάη Münnich and Märton Szegedi

At the end of the summer of 1995 the European Association of Psychology and Law organised its fifth scientific conference in Budapest, this being the first time a country of the Central-Eastern European region has acted as host. This decision, which emancipated the region's achievements in legal psychology and effectively integrated psychologists working in Central and Eastern Europe, had been preceded by a long period of development. The Introduction chapters of the Nürnberg and the Oxford conference volumes provide a most expressive description of the period preceding and following the first conference in Maastricht in 1988, and are very important documents both of the development of legal psychology and of the foundation of the Association signifying the institutionalisation of legal psychology. During this period a number of efforts were made at the national and international level at establishing a forum for the experts working in the field of legal psychology in a wider sense, where they can demonstrate their research results, discuss the theoretical and practical problems encountered, and work out effective ways of putting their research findings into practice. Since 1988 there has been an expressed need for regular international conferences. At the 1990 Nürnberg Conference the present content and structure of European Law and Psychology Conferences were established. Witness testimony and police interrogation of suspects, decision-making in courts, the role of the court expert, the assessment of offenders, correctional treatment, prison psychology, the development and perspectives of legal psychology became traditional topics of prime concern. The formal structure of the conferences also became institutionalised: in between the opening and the closing ceremony there are comprehensive lectures delivered at plenary sessions which are followed by meetings of 6-8 concurrent workshops. At the Oxford Conference in 1992 the European Association of Psychology and Law was formally inaugurated and started functioning as a scientific association, with a membership, a charter, a general assembly, a president and an executive committee. In Barcelona, 1994, the General Assembly made an important decision: the EAPL Conferences would be organised not biannually but annually.

XIV

Järtos Boros, Ινάη Münnich cmd Märton Szegedi

The first conference of the new arrangement was organised in Budapest in 1995. One reason for this choice was the increased activity since 1990 of Hungarian legal psychologists within the Association. Another reason was the organisational and infrastructural capacity offered by the Hungarian Prison Administration and its Department for Research and International Relations, proven in several well-received international conferences in cooperation with the Council of Europe and other organisations. The Budapest Conference justified the decision. The one-year period proved to be adequate both for the organisers and the participants, it was ample time to make the appropriate arrangements and to prepare stimulating and captivating lectures. The higher representation of Central and Eastern European psychologists was an additional piquancy of the Budapest event: nearly a quarter of the contributions were made by regional experts. This happened in full compliance with the intentions of the Executive Committee which chose Budapest with the expressed aim of promoting and integrating Central and Eastern European psychologists. For more than 30 of these delegates the Organising Committee and the Volkswagen Foundation supported participation and funded an additional German-East European Symposium on Psychology and Law at Pilisszentkereszt. A selection of the papers presented at this satellite meeting is included in the present volume. The interest invoked by the EAPL Conference highlighted the soundness of the decision of the Executive Committee. 28 countries from 3 continents were represented. It was also important that the Conference inspired experts from most of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. About 150 lectures were delivered at the Conference. This volume contains an edited selection of 50 papers. The contributions have been grouped around seven themes. The reader will find 3 types of articles in this volume. The first category includes the somewhat longer and more comprehensive overviews of topics as presented by the invited speakers. The second group comprises some shorter but practical presentations of topical issues (as, for instance, some of the East European contributions) or papers highlighting interrelations and regularities through interesting case analyses. The third group of articles, into which most of the papers belong, incorporate the so-called 'lege artis' studies. Let us give an overview of the main themes covered in the seven parts of the book, although no attempt is made to summarise all the published papers. Part 1 bears the title Children as Witnesses. The documents of the previous conferences indicate that testimony psychology is one of the best established and most fruitful areas of legal psychology. This is especially true in the case of child witnesses, whose credibility has quite frequently been questioned in traditional court procedures. It is undeniable that due to the stress invoked by police investigation and court hearings the interrogation of the child witness, especially when he is also a suspect, necessitates techniques that lessen the tension in the child without harming the content of the testimony. The first article addresses this problem, and at the same time gives an example of how scientific research can

Introduction

XV

influence legislation, in this specific case the legal acceptance of witness testimony recorded on video tapes, and how jurisdiction uses researchers to test the efficacy of the new method. The findings reveal that the application of videotechnology does not diminish the effectiveness of the testimony as compared to personal interviews. Other important issues addressed in Part 1 are open questions, the application of specific questions in general context, and the role of defence mechanisms in the testimony given by sexually abused juveniles. Part 2 is closely interrelated with the first theme and deals with the Cognitive Interview and Police Reaction. Combining the two areas under one title is justified by the role of police apparent in both. The Cognitive Interview is a gift for police interrogators presented by legal psychology. The effectiveness of this approach, introduced by Fisher and Geiselman, is significantly higher than that of the standard interviewing techniques traditionally used by the police. Furthermore, it is easy to learn and easy to integrate into police training programmes. With the help of the Cognitive Interview we may obtain more information from the witnesses, but the amount of inaccurate information and confabulation might also increase. Part 2 also contains convincing research findings with regard to techniques of reducing false statements. In addition, there is an interesting coverage of the cross-cultural approach to the differing police perceptions in different countries, reactions of the police in an emergency and the traditional 'police folklore' which is to be challenged by psychologists if they wish to have their new methods accepted. Part 3 is devoted to Judicial Decision-Making. As in previous conferences, research on the psychological problems related to the functioning of juries remains highly popular. Although formerly this theme had been a traditional research territory of British and American experts (as they represent countries where juries traditionally function), it seems to have become a major area of concern for Spanish experts, who author most of the papers on juries in this volume. There are interesting articles in sub-categories like the role of the gender of jurors in the predictability of biased verdicts in cases of rape, information processing and judgements given by normal and blind subjects. Serious consideration is given to the study of the cost-effectiveness and time-efficiency of smaller juries and majority decision rule as opposed to unanimity. An American study focuses on jury selection and functioning in potential capital cases, and presents an attitude scale to measure scruples to death penalty. There is an article on how the legal culture of a given country determines the application of the polygraph, plus a topic outside the realm of the criminal court on the fight of divorcing parents for custody of their children. Characteristics and Therapy of Offenders is a highly popular theme of Law and Psychology Conferences, to a great extent due to the diversity in research fields and applied methods. Apart from being interesting, this area, too, demonstrates notable practical assets: exploring the personality traits and motivations of offenders may contribute to the drawing up of successful short-term and long-term crime

XVI

Jänos Boros, Ινάη Münnich and Märton Szegedi

prevention programmes. Part 4 starts with a less highlighted although important topic: to what extent can behaviour in kindergarten become a predictive factor for adult crime. Two papers address juvenile crime, one of them examines the social competence of juvenile offenders and ways of improving their social reasoning, the other presumes that in some cases the loss of self-control accounts for violent juvenile crime and offers Anger Control Training as a remedy, attaching great importance to the interaction and cooperation between researchers and practitioners. There are two articles on murderers. One of them explores the role of expert psychological opinion for the court in cases of murder committed under emotional strain, the other focuses on the difficulties encountered in the psychological profiling of the perpetrator. The paper on group therapy for women who self-harm and another one on the difficulties in diagnosing depression represent interesting contributions. Part 4 also addresses two special areas of sexual offending: paedophilia and necrophilia. Part 5 comprises accounts in Prison and Offender Research. In view of previous experience and the papers included in this section it is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that prison psychology is one of the most dynamically developing areas of legal psychology. This section contains the biggest number of articles, and we found it especially pleasing that half of the authors are from Eastern Europe. Thus the reader can compare the peculiarities of the prison systems in Hungary, Slovenia, England, Latvia, Romania and Portugal. In addition, one of the papers examines the possibility of alternative measures to replace incarceration for drug related offenders. A German author introduces a system of training volunteers in leading problem-solving groups of inmates in Bavarian prisons. There is also an interesting article on international benchmarking, which is aimed at comparing, analysing and enhancing the prison systems in the particular countries. Part 6 under the heading Crime and the Public is made up of two sub-categories. One set of articles concentrates on the psychological aspect of victimisation, whereas the other group of papers focuses on the public perception of crime and its coverage in the mass media. The first paper in this section gives an analysis of the social, economic, religious, and psychological background of the terrorist mentality. The theme of victimisation embraces both the aspects of the fear of crime and of becoming a victim, the role of the victim's partner in processing the tensions of the victim, and the psychological analysis of the process of victimisation. One paper relates positive experiences in Italy of victim-offender mediation without the setting up of specific organisations. A German paper reveals that professional socialisation is an essential component of the explanation for juvenile crime and criminal attitudes. Finally, an article highlights the influence of the media on witness errors in identifying offenders. The last section, Part 7, bears the title History and Perspectives of Law and Psychology. Again, this section involves two major themes: one is legal psychology and the diversity of the legal environment in the European countries, the other is the history and development of legal psychology in Europe. The articles

Introduction

XVII

also help in understanding how history determined the peculiarities of the present system, and also the problem-specific sensitivity, the preferences to certain methods and strategies of the researchers working in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In conclusion, the Budapest Conference was an important milestone in the development of Psychology and Law in Europe and the authors offer valuable contributions to the literature of the discipline.

Contributors

Ainsworth, Peter Β., School of Social Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, England Alonso-Quecuty, Marisa, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of La Laguna, Campus de Guajara, Tenerife, Spain Arce, Ramon, Faculty of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago, Spain Averbeck, Mechthild, Institut für Psychologie I, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Bismarckstraße 1, 91054 Erlangen, Germany Baldry, Anna Costanza, Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Rome La Sapienza, I - via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy Baxter, James S., Department of Psychology, Strathclyde University, Glasgow GI 1RD, Scotland Belmonte, Jose Α., Organization Nacional de Ciegos Espaiioles, Plaza del Carmen, 18009 Granada, Spain Bocz, Endre, Office of the Attorney General of Budapest, 1055 Budapest, Marko u. 27, Hungary Boon, Julian, University of Leicester, University Rd, Leicester, LEI 7RH, England Boros, Jänos, National Prison Administration, 1054 Budapest, Steindl u. 8, Hungary Campos, Laura, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain Cherryman, Julie, Department of Human Communication, De Montfort University, Scraptoft Campus, Scraptoft, Leicester, LE7 9SU, England Chipchase, Hazel, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, England Clifford, Brian. R., Department of Psychology, University of East London, The Green, Stratford, London El5 4LZ, England Czerederecka, Alicja, Institute of Forensic Research, ul. Westerplatte 9, 31-033 Krakow, Poland Davies, Graham, Department of Psychology, University of Leicester, University Rd, Leicester LEI 7RH, England De Leo, Gaetano, Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', I - via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

XX

Contributors

De la Fuente, Emilia I., Dpto. de Psicologia Social y Metologia, Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain Del Popolo, Juan Horacio, Universidad Aconcagus, 4/10 Mendoza 5500, Argentina Denkers, Adriaan, Department of Social Psychology, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Dritschel, Barbara, Department of Psychology, University of East London, The Green, Stratford, London El5 4LZ, England Farina, Francisco, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vigo, r/Sierra 40, 36002 Pontevedra, Spain Florian, Georghe, Ministerul Justitiei, Directia Generalä A Penitencialeror, Str. Maria Ghiculesea 47, 77228 Bucuresti, sector 2, Romania Garcia, Juan, Dpto de Filosofia Metodologia Psicologia Social y Pedagogia, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad de Almeria, Almeria, Spain Gierowski, JozefK., Department of Social Pathology, Collegium Medicum, Jagellonian University, ul. Kopernika 21, 31-42 Krakow, Poland Girgensons, Roberts, Brivibas 215-B-6, Riga, LV -1039, Latvia Gongalves, Rui Abrunhosa, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Gwyer, Patrick, Department of Psychology, University of East London, The Green, Stratford, London El5 4LZ, England Haapasalo, Jaana, Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, SF-40351 Jyväskylä, Finland Hernandez-Fernaud, Estefania, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of La Laguna, Campus de Guajara, Tenerife, Spain Howitt, Dennis, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LEI 1 3TU, England Huszar, Laszlo, National Prison Administration, 1054 Budapest, Steindl u. 8, Hungary Hutcheson, Graeme, Social Science Methodology Unit, Adam Smith Building, Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8RT, Scotland Jaffi, Philip D., Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences and Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, Teresa, Institute of Forensic Research, ul. Westerplatte 9, 31-033 Krakow, Poland Konecni, Vladimir, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA Korolova, Evgenia V., Serbsky National Research Centre for Social and Forensic Psychiatry, ul. Tolstogo 22/2-155, 103001 Moscow, Russia Kury, Helmut, Max Planck Institute, Günterstalstrasse 73, Freiburg 79100, Germany Liebling, Helen, Ashworth Hospital, Parkboum, Maghull, Merseyside, L31 1HW, England Lösel, Friedrich, Institut für Psychologie I, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Bismarckstraße 1, 91054 Erlangen, Germany Maghan, Jess, Center for Research in Law and Justice, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 400 South Peoria Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7035, USA

Contributors

XXI

Marshall, Peter, Home Office, Cleland House, Page Street, London SW1P 4LN, England McDougall, Cynthia, HM Prison Service Headquarters, Cleland House, Page Street, London SW1P 4LN, England McGuire, James, University of Liverpool, Department of Clinical Psychology, Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Liverpool L69 3GB, England McKenna, Brian, ICAAT-Hungary, 1073 Budapest, Erzsebet krt. 39. III/4, Hungary McPherson, Sandra B., 12434 Cedar Road, Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44106, USA Milano, Jay, 2639 Wooster Road, Rocky River, Ohio 44 116 Mulder, Marianne R., Free University, Department of Social Psychology, De Boelelaan 1081c, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Nijboer, Johannes F., Leiden University, Galgewater, Leiden 2311V2, The Netherlands Noon, Elizabeth, Department of Human Communication, De Montfort University, Scraptoft Campus, Leicester LE7 9SU, England Novo, Mercedes, Faculty of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago, Spain Palmer, Emma J., School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England Petrovec, Dragan, Institute of Criminology, Maroltova 10,61000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Powls, John, HM Prison Service Headquarters, Cleland House, Page Street, London SW1P 4LN, England Real, Santiago, Faculty of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago, Spain Scardaccione, Gilda, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', I - via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy Smith, Michael, ICAAT-Hungary, 1073 Budapest, Erzsebet krt. 39. III/4, Hungary Spezia, Stella M., Universidad Aconcagus, 4/10 Mendoza 5500, Argentina Stanik, Jan M., Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Silesia, ul. Tyszki 53, 40-126 Katowice, Poland Szaszkiewicz, Maciej, Institute of Forensic Research, u. Westerplatte 9, 31-033 Krakow, Poland Szegedi, Mar ton, Psychiatric Clinic, Semmelweis Medical University, 1083 Budapest, Balassa u. 6. Telfer, Karen S., Department of Psychology, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, England Tremblay, Richard E., Universite de Montreal, GRIP, 3500 Edouard-Montpetit, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada Van Kampen, Petra, Leiden Institute for Law and Public Policy, Herengracht 48, Leiden 2312LE, The Netherlands Vila, Carlos, Faculty of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago, Spain

XXII

Contributors

Vokö, György, Office of the Attorney General of Hungary, 1055 Budapest, Marko u. 27, Hungary Vrij, Aldert, University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology, King Charles Street, Portsmouth POl 2ER, England Warden, David, Department of Psychology, Strathclyde University, Glasgow GI 1RD, Scotland Wilson, Janet Clare, Psychology Department, Leicester University, Leicester LEI 7RH, England Winkel, Frans Willem, Department of Social Psychology, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081,1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Wydra, Bernhard, Bayerische Justizvollzugschule, Äussere Passauerstraße 188, Straubing, Germany

Part 1 Children as Witnesses

Videotechnology and the Child Witness Graham Davies

In England and Wales, the laws governing the treatment of child witnesses and their evidence have changed radically in the last decade. These changes have been dictated partly by the increase in awareness of child's sexual and physical abuse and partly by psychological research which has undermined the traditional legal view of the child witness as unreliable and infinitely gullible (see Davies, 1991; Spencer & Flin, 1993 for reviews). This change in perspective was reflected in Criminal Justice Acts which progressively dismantled the traditional legal obstacles to hearing of children's evidence. The competency test, the corrobation rule and the special caution regarding the evidence of minors have all been swept aside in England and Wales. The 1993 Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Act reiterated the new view that the courts should normally be prepared to listen to the evidence of children but it is up to the jury to decide what weight to attach to it. These parliamentary acts have also brought in procedural changes designed to make the tendering of evidence less stressful for the child. Research on children's fears at court have consistently demonstrated that fears of giving evidence in front of the accused and the alien nature of courtroom procedures are major concerns among prospective witnesses. The 1988 act introduced the "Live Link" into the United Kingdom; a form of closed circuit television which permits children to be seated in a small room adjacent to the courtroom and to be examined and crossexamined by counsel stationed in the courtroom. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the system was conducted by Davies and Noon (1991). A survey of the opinions of judges and barristers who had practised experience of the system suggested widespread acceptance of its effectiveness in reducing stress among juvenile witnesses, and also in improving the quality of evidence. The idea that increased stress is associated with problems of retrieving information from memory will be a familiar one to all amateur actors (or expert witnesses!) and has received support from experimental research (Saywitz & Nathanson, 1993). As a result of these positive findings, the live link is now available in over half of the Crown Court Centres in England and Wales and will shortly be available in all major Scottish cities (Murray, 1995). However, the system was not without its critics who were concerned that evidence presented via television would have less impact than live testimony. As one QC claimed, "Even though the child is in the other room, the idea of television

4

Graham Davies

removes the reality". It is this negative view of the "Live Link" which seems to have dominated many court centres. According to Plotnikoff and Woolfson (1995), when protection from the accused is offered to the child, the use of screens is still more common than the "Live Link" whose usage in England and Wales is reported to have dropped from 128 cases in 1990 to just 91 in 1992. The use of screens as a device to obscure the accused from the child in court remains haphazard and unregulated and in terms of their impact on children' demeanour and quality of evidence produce results midway between the "Live Link" and testifying in open court. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act introduced a further extension of the use of videotechnology to assist the courts in hearing children's evidence: the admission of video-recorded interviews as evidence for a range of offences involving physical and sexual assaults. At the discretion of the judge, the prosecution could substitute for live examination at court a videotaped interview conducted by a police officer and for social worker which explored the allegations made by the child. The child would, however, still have to be present live at court for cross-examination by the defence and any re-examination by the prosecution. The proposal in the Act stemmed from the recommendations of the in 1989 which had endorsed the introduction of tape recorded interviews as a more satisfactory way of gathering and hearing evidence from juveniles. These interviews, it was agreed, would record in the child's own words a vivid and contemporaneous account of the allegations, untarnished by the passage of time. Such interviews would avoid the need for multiple interviews and permit the badly traumatised child to receive some form of therapy between the interview and any trial, obviating any allegation of coaching or contamination. Pigot also suggested that video recording could be extended to the defence cross-examination which might be conducted prior to trial in an informal setting in the presence of the judge and the child's own legal representative, thus avoiding the need to appear in court at all. However, the Home Office rejected this radical extension despite extensive support within the legal and child care professions (Spencer 1991). The Home Office did, however, recognise the need identified by Pigot for some rules of guidance as to how the recorded interviews were to be conducted. As Pigot noted, such interviews were both investigatory and evidential and it was essential that the form of questioning employed should be in accord with those acceptable to a court of law. In 1992, the Home Office, in conjunction with the Department of Health published the Memorandum of Good Practice, which summarised the findings of an enquiry by a psychologist and lawyer into the best practice and the recommendations of a working party of concerned professionals. The Memorandum advocated that as far as possible, children should tell their own story and that leading questions and other suggestive procedures should only be used as a last resort. The publication also included guidance on legal matters and technical detail designed to ensure that the interview was of a quality suitable for court.

Videotechnology and the Child Witness

5

When the legislation came into force in October 1992, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the new procedure from a team at Leicester University (Davies, Wilson, Mitchell & Milsom, 1995). The evaluation covered the views of users, which were sampled at the time of the introduction of taped interviews and again some 18 months later when users had had practical experience of legislation. Observation was also undertaken in courts where children gave evidence using both traditional and new procedures, and their performance was evaluated by means of rating scales. In addition, the team received the full co-operation of the police and Lord Chancellor's Department in establishing the frequency and outcome of trials under the new procedures. The Act was subject to "rolling implementation"; different regions began making recordings at different times, once trained staff and the necessary taping equipment became available. It was evident from the earliest days that some police forces and social work departments embraced the new legislation with enthusiasm, whereas others hung back. Butler (1993) conducted a survey of county police authorities in the first six months of the Act. This revealed that in that period, some 14,912 tape recorded interviews had taken place with children which had results in approximately one in four being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for further action. However, these figures revealed widespread variation between different forces, both in the number of interviews undertaken and in the proportion of interviews leading to further action. Such figures suggest considerable ambiguity over what circumstances and when video interviews should be conducted. Some police forces appeared to be routinely interviewing all witnesses falling within the Act, whereas others seemed to be more selective over who was interviewed and when. The decision over the precise moment to interview remains fraught with difficulty. Interviewing too early risks a child minimising an allegation or refusing to disclose any information because trust and rapport are insufficiently established. Leaving an interview to a later stage may provoke an allegation from the defence that the child's testimony has been irredeemably contaminated by the investigative process. This issue has remained a source of concern throughout the lifetime of legislation. When Butler conducted his survey in June 1993, just 152 applications had been made to show video recordings in court and only 44 had actually been shown. These figures inevitably gave rise to concerns that a massive diversion or recourses had occurred to very little purpose. These figures, however, do not tell the complete story. The number of video applications has shown a steady rise from a rather uncertain beginning. Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department show that between October 1992 and April 1994, there were some 1199 trials relating to charges under the Act of which 640 or 53% were accompanied by applications to show videotapes. Moreover this average figure conceals a steady increase in the proportion of cases in which video applications were made; by June it had reached 75% of all cases considered in that month.

6

Graham Davies

Nonetheless, critics of the legislation will point to the small number of videos actually shown in court. Throughout the 18 months from October 1992, only 202 were known to have been shown. However, these figures should also be examined carefully. Does this mean judges were refusing applications? No, our best estimate is that only 15% of video recordings were turned down by judges for which poor technical quality was the most frequent cause. The principle reasons for the discrepancy between applications made and videos shown are twofold. Late guilty pleas by the accused which obviate the need to pursue a case further (see below) and last minute changes in courtroom tactics by prosecuting counsel. The child's barrister may well change between the time of application to show a video being made and a case coming to trial. His or her new representative may decide on the day of the trial to interview the child live at court, because they believe this will have a greater impact on the jury. Such late changes of opinion can have quite disastrous consequences for the child witness involved. The child will have proceeded under the assumption that his or her live testimony will not be required, only to have that decision abruptly reversed in the courtroom. Moreover, as the video is not played at court, the child may have had no opportunity to refresh his evidence. He will be asked to recall events which occurred two or more years ago. In these circumstances it will come as no surprise that in the sample of cases which we attended at court, such tactics were invariably unsuccessful from the point of view of the prosecution. When a video has shown, what impact did it have on the outcome? In the period surveyed, Lord Chancellor's Department statistics suggest that 47% of cases resulted in a late guilty plea by the accused. When the case went to trial, juries returned guilty verdicts on a further 23% of cases while 27% of defendants were acquitted (the remaining 3% involved re-trials and other outcomes). How does this rate of convictions relate to comparable trials where no videotaped evidence was shown? Scrutiny of the relevant figures provides no support for the view that juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of taped evidence. When the Crown's evidence was taken by "Live" examination at court, convictions were returned in 43% of cases. When a videotape was submitted the figure was 48%: a somewhat higher figure though not one which is statistically different from the rate for conventional examinations. A related concern was that when videotapes were submitted by the Crown it would follow that the child's first experience of examination at court would be from the defence barrister. There were fears that in the absence of acclimatization to the courtroom provided by the prosecutor through gentler questioning, the child would then be more vulnerable to robust cross-examination techniques (Spencer, 1991). There was little support for this view in terms of rates of conviction, nor were rating of mood and anxiety during cross examination any different between those who had and had not experienced examination in chief live at court.

Videotechnology and the Child Witness

7

One final issue of concern is whether the presence of videotaped evidence as part of the Crown's case would in itself increase the rate of guilty pleas. The view that the very existence of an incriminating videotape might shame an accused into pleading guilty had been expressed by the Pigot Report (1989) on the basis of anecdotal evidence from experiments in the United States. The actual figures for England and Wales are somewhat equivocal on this point. Where the prosecution made an application to show a videotape, 49% of accused tendered a guilty plea, compared to 43% where no application was made: a difference in the expected direction, but not statistically significant. The bold statistic concealed some differing views and perspectives of the parties to the videotaping legislation. Our survey results suggested that the police officers, social workers, and presiding judges generally welcomed the introduction of this novel form of evidence and their enthusiasm was maintained albeit to a diminished degree throughout the period of our research. Barristers on the other hand took a sceptical view of the proposals, fearing that children would get away more easily with lies when questioned on tape than in the courtroom. Concerns about lying diminished with experience of the system in practice, but this was matched in turn by a growing concern that videotaped evidence would have less impact on a jury. As has been noted, there was no statistical evidence to support this view from trial outcomes. The primary concern of social workers at the instigation of the Act was that they would be insufficiently trained to produce videotapes of a quality acceptable to a criminal court. Our survey data suggest that these concerns were diminished over time, to be replaced by fresh concerns that their skills and perspective were being undervalued and sidelined by a prosecution-driven process that paid little attention to the real needs of the child. This view was echoed in the Social Services Inspectorate Report (1994) which suggested that police officers normally led the interviewing process in 75% of local authorities. This in part reflected the greater experience and more intensive training undertaken by the police and it seems likely that only when Social Service developed a training regime involving a select cadre of experienced interviewers was parity of leadership (and esteem) achieved. It is evident from our survey results that some parties to the 1991 legislation harbour serious reservations on its impact in practice. Lawyers fear that their forensic skills have been hijacked by other professionals and that their chances of winning - or defending - cases have been reduced. Social workers fear that they have been marginalised in many areas of child protection work and the question of whether prosecution is always in the child's best interests is insufficiently addressed. The police and the judiciary on the other hand, have fewest reservations on the outcome of the legislation. All parties have welcomed the introduction of the Memorandum of Good Practice, which, despite its inevitable imperfections has had a positive impact both on levels of training and the consequent quality of interviews. Our survey data suggests that of 110 children we observed whose videos

8

Graham Davies

were submitted to the court, only 2% were rejected as breaking the rules of evidence and only 27% were edited before being shown to the jury. While serious concerns remain, there seems little likelihood of a return to the conventional interviewing, though clearly there is room for further improvement. One major consideration highlighted in our Report (Davies et al, 1995) is the need for a new edition of the Memorandum of Good Practice. This might include more explicit directives on when to formally interview a child and the limits on pre-interview contact. The latter would be designed to give the child a clearer idea of the purpose and focus of any interview as well as gauging whether the child had anything to say and was prepared to say it. Such preparation might reduce the inevitably large investment in personnel and plant involved in "Memorandum" procedures which is giving serious concern among Directors of Social Services (Social Services Inspectorate, 1994). However, it would be a mistake to believe that the problem of the child witness in the English court was solely focused in the investigative phase of an enquiry. Our researchers discovered that many of the difficulties surrounding children's court appearances highlighted in earlier reports from non-technological age were still present today. Children were still waiting far too long to have their cases heard (as long as 40 weeks in some parts of the United Kingdom, Plotnikoff and Woolfson, 1994). When they arrived at court they were kept waiting often in unsatisfactory conditions: the average delay before giving evidence was 2 1/2 weeks with a minority waiting 6 hours or more. Considerable progress has been made in preparing children for the court experience, but still 30% of all children observed were visiting the court for the first time on the day they gave evidence and only 1 child in 4 had had the opportunity to practice communication via Live Link. Just 16% had met the Prosecutor prior to trial and only 1% had been introduced to the judge. As long as the trial process remains so often non-child friendly, video technology will only supply an important but partial answer to the dilemma of the child in court.

References Butler, A. J. (1993). Spare the Child. Police Review, pp.141-151. Davies, G. M. (1991). Research on Children's Testimony: Implications for Interviewing Practice. In C. R. Hollin, & Κ. Howells (Eds.). Clinical Approaches to Sex Offenders and their Victims. Chichester: Wiley. Davies, G. M., & Noon, E. (1991). An Evaluation of the Live Link for Child Witnesses. London: Home Office. Davies, G. M., Wilson, J. C., Mitchell, R., & Milsom, J. (1995). Videotaping of Children's Evidence: An Evaluation. London: Home Office. Home Office and Department of Health (1992). Memorandum on Good Practice on Videorecording of Interviews with Child Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Videotechnology and the Child Witness

9

Murray, K. (1995). Live Television Link: An Evaluation of its Use in Scottish Criminal Trials. Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Pigot, T. (1989). Report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence. London: Home Office. Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (1994). The Pace of Child Abuse Prosecutions: An Evaluation of the Government's Speedy Progress Policy. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. Saywitz, K., & Nathanson, R. (1993). Children's Testimony and their Perceptions of Stress in and out of Courtroom. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 613-621. Social Services Inspectorate (1994). The Child, the Court and the Video. London: Department of Health. Spencer, J. R. (1991). Reformers' Despair. New Law Journal, 141, 787. Spencer, J. R., & Flin, R. (1993). The Evidence of Children: The Law and the Psychology (2nd ed.). London: Blackstone.

Explaining Conversation Rules as a Method to Reduce Suggestibility of the Child Witness Aldert Vrij, Marianne R. Mulder and Julie Cherryman

Young children who have become the victim of sexual abuse are often the only witnesses of the crime. Consequently, testimonies of these children are necessary to find out exactly what took place, and to detect and charge the perpetrator. There have for a long time been doubts about the competence of children to act as witnesses, with children being thought to be very susceptible to suggestions, making their statements untrustworthy. An often cited example is an experiment conducted by Varendonck in 1911 (see Ross, Miller and Moran, 1987). He asked a group of seven-year old schoolchildren, what colour was the beard of one their teachers. Most children mentioned a colour, while in fact the teacher did not have a beard at all. Varendonck concluded that children are unreliable witnesses. Recently there has been much research conducted concerning the suggestibility of children (see Ceci & Bruck, 1993, for an overview). This research shows that children are able to resist misleading questions and give reliable information about events. However, there are factors which influence the susceptibility to suggestion and thus threaten the reliability of testimonies. At first it was thought that only cognitive factors (such as memory and knowledge) cause suggestibility. However, various experiments have shown that other factors are involved. Moston (1990) and Spencer and Flin (1990) found that children sometimes give answers to questions which are known to them to be incorrect. King and Yuille (1987) found that children sometimes give incorrect answers, whereas in a 'free recall' situation they remembered the event correctly. When asked, the children explained their inconsistent answers by saying they "just went along" with the questions. This behaviour looks more like a social shortcoming than a cognitive shortcoming. Authors like Ceci and Bruck (1993), Elbers (1991), Dent and Stephenson (1984), Goodman (1984), Moston (1990) and Warnick and Sanders (1980) suggest that, during an interview with a child, misapprehensions occur between interviewer and child which cause the child to give wrong answers. These misapprehensions are caused by social-psychological factors which influence the interaction between the child and the interviewer. In this experiment the influence of two such social-psychological factors on the suggestibility of children was examined. The first factor is that children are accustomed to receiving help from the adult with whom they are interacting, which explains why they expect help during an interview: (1) Expectation of help.

Explaining Conversation Rules as a Method to Reduce

Suggestibility

11

The second factor is that children are not aware that in some cases it is better not to give an answer than to give the wrong answer: (2) the "I-don't-know"-option. Both factors are discussed by different authors (Bekerian & Dennet, 1992; Bull, 1992; Ceci, 1993; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Lepore, 1991; Lepore & Sesco, 1994; Moston, 1990; Saywitz, Nathanson, Snyder, & Lamphear, 1993; Vrij & van Wijngaarden, 1994; Zaragoza, Dahlgren, & Muench, 1992) as factors which may influence suggestibility.

Expectation of help

Elbers and colleagues (Elbers, 1991; Elbers & Kelderman, 1991), Ornstein (1991) and Poole and Lindsay (1995) emphasize the fact that children do not know the social conversational rules of an interview. The most important rule in this kind of interaction is that the child has to tell something which is unknown to the adult. But the child is not used to this situation with adults (cf. the 'transfer of control' aspect of the 'enhanced cognitive interview' (Memon, Wark, Bull, & Köhnken, 1994)). Children are accustomed to the conversational rules at school (in interaction with the teacher) and at home (in interactions with their parents). Though there are differences in these situations, there is one important similarity. Both in school and at home adults play a supporting role in conversation: children can count on support and help. Also, these children know that adults often already have the relevant information. During an investigative interview, however, the (adult) interviewer cannot help the child to answer the questions. It is probable that children are not aware of this fact. To eliminate the danger of suggestion as much as possible it is necessary for the interviewer to explain this "new conversational rule". The interviewer should explain to the child that the child may well know things that the interviewer does not know and that the child is the only one who can tell these things. It should be emphasized that the interviewer cannot help the child in answering the questions. Elbers and Kelderman (1991) investigated the influence of expectation of help on task performance in children aged five and six years old. They were given two rows with six blocks and after the child had verified that the amount of blocks in each row was the same (this posed no problem), the experimenter took apart one of the rows. The children were then asked whether both rows still contained the same amount of blocks. There were three experimental conditions. In the first condition ('expectancy of help' condition) an expectancy of help towards the experimenter was created by giving the children a pretask in which they received help from the experimenter. In the second condition ('no help' condition) the experimenter explicitly stated in the pretask that he could not give the child any help and that the child had to do it alone. The children in the control condition did not receive a pretask. The results showed that children in the 'no help' condition gave the best performance. Children in the other two conditions performed the same. Explaining to the child that the experimenter

12

Aldert Vrij, Marianne R. Mulder and Julie Cherryman

could not give any help resulted in a better performance. In the present experiment the idea whether this manipulation will also make children less susceptible to misleading questions is tested.

I-don 't-know

option

Dent and Stephenson (1979) and Warnick and Sanders (1980) proposed that incorrect answers emerge from the fact that individuals (adults as well as children) assume that they have to answer every question whether they know the answer or not. According to these researchers the "I-don't-know" answer is never encouraged. Using a task involving the identification of people by adults Warnick and Sanders (1980) investigated the effect of giving an "I-don't-know" option. They explained to one group that an "I-don't-know" option would be acceptable and this group made significantly fewer mistakes in the identification task than did the control group (which had not received this information). This has been replicated by Cutler and Penrod (1995) among others. Moston (1987) and Vrij and Winkel (1994) have conducted similar experiments with children. The experimental group was told that an "I-don't-know" answer would be acceptable, the control group did not receive this information. The results did not show any effects of this manipulation: both groups gave the same amount of incorrect answers. A possible explanation is that the "I-don't-know" option was not given sufficient emphasis and had not been sufficiently explained thus explaining the lack of effects between the groups of children. The interviewer in the Vrij and Winkel experiment had the impression that not all the children had understood the explanation of an "I-don't-know" answer. Perhaps a more elaborate and, to an adult, seemingly exaggerated explanation of the meaning of an "Idon't-know" answer would lead to more positive results. Recent British government advice to investigative interviewers (Bull, 1992; Home Office, 1992) strongly recommends advising children that Ί-don't-know' is an acceptable reply, but no guidance is given on how best to do this. In the present experiment the effectiveness of an extensive "I-don't-know" explanation has been tested. In the present experiment the following two hypotheses have been tested: children will be less susceptible to misleading questions when the interviewer states clearly that she was not present during the event and cannot help the child in answering the questions (Hypothesis 1); children will be less susceptible to misleading questions when they receive an instruction explaining at length that an "Idon't-know" answer is also acceptable (Hypothesis 2). Two age-groups participated in the study, very young children (age 4-6) and somewhat older children (age 8-10). This made it possible to investigate whether the two factors in the different age-groups have the same or different effects. It's not unthinkable that the two introduced factors have unwanted side-effects. For instance, it might be possible that due to the "I-don't-know" option children

Explaining Conversation Rules as a Method to Reduce

Suggestibility

13

answer "I-don't-know" to every question and as a result don't give any other information. To control this an open-ended question and two leading questions were asked besides the three misleading questions about the event.

Method Subjects A total of 114 children participated in the experiment, 45 children who attend kindergarten, aged 45 and 69 children who attend the third grade, aged 8-10. There were 57 boys and 57 girls.

Procedure The subjects attended an elementary school in Amsterdam and participated with their parents' approval. The experiment took place during school hours. The children were confronted with the following staged event: At the beginning of class a woman (a confederate) comes into the room with a book in her hand and a handbag over her shoulder. The teacher tells the children that the woman has come to read them a story. The moment she starts to read a man (also a confederate) comes in and claims that the woman has his book. The woman denies and says he is lying. The man tries to snatch the book away and they both start pulling at the book. The woman threatens to hit the man on the head with the book if he does not leave. The man pulls the book out of her hand and informs her that his name is written in the book. He then suggests that her book might be in her bag. This turns out to be true. The woman took the book out of her bag. The man leaves with his book and the woman starts reading.

After the woman had finished the story, the instructor took the children one by one out of the class and brought them to the interviewer explaining that she was bringing the child to someone who wanted to know what happened in the classroom between the man and the woman. The interviewer was not present during the classroom event and didn't have insight into the aims of the experiment. The interview with the children was taped on video. The children were told not to mind the video and that the interview would be recorded for the interviewer to look at again later on. The children were randomly assigned to the different conditions. The teachers were aware of the experiment and afterwards they gave the children a debriefing in which they explained that the quarrel between the man and the woman was only play and not real.

14

Aldert Vrij, Marianne R. Mulder and Julie Cherryman

Independent Variables In this experiment three independent variables were used, "Expectation of help", "I-don't-know" and "Age". The variable "Expectation of help" was manipulated by having the interviewer explain to half of the children (n=61) that she was not present in the classroom and did not see the event, the child is the only one of them who has seen the event and therefore the interviewer will not be able to assist the child in answering the questions. The other half of the children (n=53) were not given any explanation. The variable "I-don't-know" was manipulated by having the interviewer instruct half of the children (n-62) that in case of doubt they should answer with "I-don't-know". She gave an example by asking the children if they knew her name. When the children answered she told them that they could not know her name because she had not told them her name and that therefore it was correct to answer with "I-don't-know". The other half of the children (n=52) were not given any explanation. Two age-groups participated in the study, "younger children" (4-6 years old) and "older children" (8-10 years old).

Dependent Variables The interviewer asked the children six questions, three misleading questions (i.e. leading to an incorrect answer), two leading questions (i.e. leading to the correct answer) and one open question. The misleading questions were (the correct answers are between brackets): - Who threw the book across the classroom? (The book wasn't thrown across the classroom.) - What colour were the woman's glasses? (She was not wearing glasses.) - How hard did the woman hit the man on the head? (She did not hit him.) Afterwards the percentage of incorrect answers were calculated (the total amount of wrong answers divided by three, the number of misleading questions). Following common procedures (Bottoms et al, 1989) we considered "I-don'tknow" as a correct answer, because it indicates resistance to suggestion. The leading questions were (the correct answers are between brackets): "Who took the book out of the bag?" (the woman) and "Who came to read the children a story?" (the woman). Afterwards the percentage of incorrect answers were calculated (the total amount of wrong answers divided by two, the number of leading questions). In this case we considered "I-don't-know" as an incorrect answer. The open question was: - "Please describe the man." The amount of features mentioned by the child, (without receiving help from the interviewer) was scored. A distinction was made between correct features and incorrect features.

Explaining Conversation Rules as a Method to Reduce

15

Suggestibility

Results To examine Hypotheses 1 and 2 the data were analyzed (ANOVA) on the basis of a 2 (Expectation of help: no help vs control) X2 (I-don't-know: don't-know vs control) X2 (Age: 4-6 year olds vs 8-10 year olds) design. The percentage of incorrect answers was the dependent variable. The percentages for the eight cells are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Percentages of incorrect answers No help expectancy

Control

I-don't-know - younger children - older children

.17 .20

.24 .25

Control - younger children - older children

.36 .33

.59 .59

The analysis revealed two main effects, namely for Expectation of help, F (1,106)=6.52, /K.05 and for "I-don't-know", F(l,106)=18.22,/?0.05) or conversation (t=0.66, df=40, p>0.05), but there was a significant difference in the amount of confabulation about what happened (t=2.70, df=40, pPRO (*) PR>PO>PRO>PS>L

Evalu- Attiation8·" tudeb'd

(+)

(*) -

η ο

+ -

»

_

*

+

(*) * PR>PS>L>PRO>PO * PO>PRO>L>PS>PR (PR>PO>L>PS>PRO) (*) PS>PR>PRO>L>PO (*) L>PRO>PS>PO>PR (PR>PS>PRO>PO>L) ** PS>PRO>PR>L>PO (*) PS>PRO>PO>PR>L

o** _-

η***

**

+

Note: Analyses of variance with simultaneous inclusion of main effect and covariates. a Negative (lower scores) to positive (higher scores) evaluation of the current practice of juvenile reformatories. b Disapproving, distrustful (lower scores) to benevolent, supportive (higher scores) attitude toward juvenile prisoners. c As main effect: individual comparisons (t-tests). L: legal experts (reformatory governors, juvenile judges); PO: Prison officers; PS: Professional services (social workers, psychologists, teachers); PRO: Probation officers; PR: Prisoners. >: Significant higher scores (p: Nonsignificant higher scores. d As covariate: +: positive correlations; - : negative correlations: (*): p